Feiglin: Immoral for Israel to take US aid, US may not survive Obama
Likud MK Moshe Feiglin has told The New American that it's immoral for Israel to take US foreign aid. But many of you who like that statement may not like his reasoning.
“I’m totally against this [US foreign] aid [to
Israel],” Feiglin told The New American, a relatively unknown
publication affiliated with far-right American politics. “It cannot be
when, first of all, the Americans are standing in line like two or three
miles in the snow to get a job. To get any kind of aid from America
when, economically, we are in a much, much better position doesn’t look
moral to me.”
Furthermore, American aid “is not in our
favor, not economically, not militarily, not in any way,” the MK told
the magazine’s Alex Newman. (He gave the interview last month in the Knesset,
but it only appeared on Monday.) “This aid serves psychological
purposes, not anything else. We are talking about 1.5 percent of our
income, of what Israel is producing — we can definitely deal without
it.”
Since World War II, Israel is the largest
recipient of US foreign aid, having received a total of $118 billion,
most of it in the form of military assistance. Currently, Washington
supports Israel with about $3 billion per year.
Newman asked Feiglin about former Republican
presidential candidate Ron Paul’s argument that the US administration is
using the aid “to obtain leverage over the Israeli government when
Israel should be thinking about its own interests rather than what
Washington thinks.”
Feiglin responded, “I 100 percent agree.”
So is Feiglin a Ron Paul supporter? I think he'd say that's none of our business. On the other hand, he certainly doesn't have a lot of confidence in the Obama administration's stewardship of the American economy.
“I don’t know what’s going to happen with
America — I’m more worried about America than about Israel,” he told the
magazine. “I know it sounds maybe a little bit crazy. However, we are a
nation of 3,300 years. We have our little ups and downs over our
history, but it seems like physically we are stronger than ever.
“History shows that big empires fall, and it
doesn’t look like America today is on the rise,” he continued. “So
there’s more — from my historical understanding — there’s more to worry
about now for America than about Israel. I think — and again, excuse me
for saying so — I think America needs Israel not any less than Israel
needs America.”
Feiglin said he is aware that his comments
sound “a bit funny” — though not because the world’s last remaining
superpower is also the world’s strongest economy, but because the US has
so many more inhabitants than Israel. “But even though I’m aware of the
numbers, I’m still saying what I’m saying because I think that Israel
carries moral weight, and also technological and strategic and
territorial weight, that is much bigger than its size.”
For those of you who are not Jewish, or even for those who are but don't keep Kosher, you should be aware that the OU (Orthodox Union or Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations) is best known for it's Kosher seal of approval - the U with an O around it that you see in the picture above - on food products worldwide. It is also the largest organization servicing 'modern Orthodox' Jews in the United States and Canada. Has Barack Hussein Obama been granted an OU?
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu should not meet with Republican presidential candidates during his upcoming trip to Washington so as not to be perceived as taking sides in the campaign, Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Orthodox Union (OU), said this week.
...
A source in the Prime Minister’s Office said that while no final decision had been made on whether Netanyahu would meet the Republican presidential candidates, it was not likely he would meet with one if could not meet with all four – Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul – which was an unlikely occurrence.
In past election years, the source said, Israel’s prime minister had generally met only with presidential candidates after their party’s convention.
I can accept Netanyahu not meeting with any Republican candidates if he can't meet with three of the four (Santorum, Gingrich and Romney - I don't think he should meet with Ron Paul). But if the reason he's not going to meet with them is that he can't meet with all of them (a reason that makes sense given that the nomination is still contested), he ought to meet with the Republican leadership in Congress - John Boehner and Eric Cantor in the House and Mitch McConnell in the Senate. We can be assured that President Obama will do all he can to use Netanyahu's visit for the benefit of his own campaign, and Netanyahu ought to counter that by being seen with Republicans.
By the way, despite the best efforts of a certain Democratic activist within the OU's leadership (full disclosure: I was a national officer in the OU's youth group many years ago and am still in contact with the organization), Nathan Diament admits in the article that members of the OU's constituent synagogues voted 3-1 for John McCain in 2008. This time, God willing, that vote will be even more overwhelming in favor of the Republican nominee.
So no, Obama doesn't have an OU seal of approval yet, and given how unpopular he is in the modern Orthodox Jewish community, I doubt he'll be getting one any time soon. But there are still people within the organization who are doing all they can to minimize the damage that can be done to Obama's campaign by members of the modern Orthodox Jewish community.
Romney running mate believes that Iran pursues nukes due to US threats
I have said before that if Ron Paul is the Republican nominee for President, I will stay home this election cycle. The possibility that he could be the nominee for Vice President never occurred to me. Why would anyone be so foolish? Well, Mitt Romney just might be (Hat Tip: Catholic Lisa via Twitter).
After tonight's debate, in which Ron Paul and Mitt Romney repeatedly attacked Rick Santorum over his 16-year record in Congress, the former US Senator for Pennsylvania hinted that something nefarious was going on.
"You have to ask Congressman Paul and Governor Romney what they've got going together," Santorum told reporters in the spin room in Mesa, Arizona. "Their commercials look a lot alike and so do their attacks."
Santorum's top strategist John Brabender went even further, charging that the two men had "joined forces" and were coordinating attacks against his man.
"Clearly there's a tag team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. For all I know, Mitt Romney might be considering Ron Paul as his running mate. Clearly there is now an alliance between those two and you saw that certainly in the debate."
I actually have two videos of John Bolton speaking at CPAC. In the first one, Bolton slams Ron Paul, and in the second one, he slams Barack Hussein Obama.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W via HotAirPundit).
Here's the second video. Let's go to the videotape.
Maybe this year, Ron Paul won't win at CPAC. No one booed Bolton for attacking Paul.
It's almost not worth mentioning him anymore, because Ron Paul seemingly has no chance of being the Republican nominee in 2012, but in the interests of making sure there is no future Presidential run, it's important to expose who he really is when we have the chance.
Here's a post about Ron Paul's association with neo-Nazis. That link does not go to a Jewish or pro-Israel site - it goes to a site called "News One for Black America." You don't have to be Jewish or pro-Israel to loathe Ron Paul.
Ron Paul's website promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Here's a screen cap (done as a pdf and embedded on my blog via ScribD) of a page from Ron Paul's website that promotes that anti-Semitic classic, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
According toAdam Taxin of the NY Jewish Examiner, Paul’s website has been publicizing and distributing the infamous anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Meetings of the Elders of Zion for the last three years!
Writes Taxin:
The website for “Campaign for Liberty”, an organization started by “Republican” anti-Israel Presidential candidate Ron Paul, has, since late 2008, been featuring a page offering the opportunity to purchase the notorious forged anti-Semitic book The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
As word spreads of this, inevitably Paul’s campaign will take down the page and claim the situation was a mere innocent mistake with which Paul (who of course hopes to lend his managerial skills to the entire nation) had nothing to do, a la the controversy over his newsletters in the 1990s. This of course despite the fact that the page with the link has now been up for over three years.
Indeed the web pages involved have now been taken down. The links, available from Taxin’s article, now read: “This blog entry doesn’t exist. Perhaps it once did, and was un-published or deleted, or maybe it’s just an invalid entry ID…” Maybe, maybe not. Unfortunately, Taxin has the screen grab with all the creepy ravings of one who calls himself “Free American.” The web is written in indelible ink, as we know.
Still waiting to hear from all the Jews who come on here every time I post something about Ron Paul to see if they try to explain this one away. Hey - if you're really Jews, you're supposed to be smart. Open your eyes and stop deluding yourselves. The man is an anti-Semite.
Irony alert: Obama claims Republicans would cut aid to Israel, except Ron Paul
Notice the advertisement above. It comes from President Obama's campaign website. It claims that Romney, Perry and Gingrich would cut aid to Israel. It's a lie. It doesn't mention Ron Paul. That's another lie. Maybe Obama wants to run against Ron Paul? Yid with Lid reports.
Each of these candidate have said they would take a zero-based approach to foreign aid, not one of them has indicated they would stop sending aid to Israel. Each of the above candidates have long track records of supporting Israel, at times bothGingrich and Perry have been accused of being over the top in their support of the Jewish State. As for Romney, support of Israel is one of the areas he hasn't flip-flopped on.
Obama's internal polling must show he is in danger of losing a big slice of the 78% of Jews who voted for him in 2008--hence his recent appointment of an Orthodox Jew as his Chief of Staff and his lies about the GOP and Israel.
I think Obama wants to run against Ron Paul, because that will make all the Israel supporters stay home.
He doesn't mention Santorum either but I suspect that's because Santorum hasn't called for zero-based foreign aid.
Where does Ron Paul get his anti-Israel ideas? Apparently from a University of Chicago professor named Robert Pape.
But where did Paul get this idea? We learn exactly from whom in the next paragraph:
Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.” In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95 percent were in response to foreign occupation.
It is essential to take note of the fact that the primary support for Paul’s belief concerning blowback comes from Robert Pape. The problem for Paul here is that by most accounts, Pape is an agenda-driven pseudo-scholar whose works and “studies” have been thoroughly debunked by several other scholars.
Here's an interview with Pape. The part that relates to Israel starts around the 8:00 mark.
Let's go to the videotape.
When Pape makes his claims about Lebanon, he conveniently 'forgets' the suicide attack that murdered Rafik al-Hariri in 2005. He also doesn't define 'occupation,' and given that most 'Palestinians' consider any Jewish presence in the Levant as 'occupation' and therefore his position (and Paul's - you can hear Paul's positions in Pape's words) is untenable for Israel.
But Pape is likely Paul's intellectual guide, just like Wright was Obama's.
Ron Paul backed Cynthia McKinney in her failed reelection bid in 2008.
This is from the first link.
Sarah Palin admonished Republicans not to ridicule Congressman Ron Paul. Sarah Palin is wrong. Ron Paul is a disloyal phony who has earned whatever contempt real Republicans have for him and his dangerously naive ideas about foreign policy. Ron Paul has shunned the party in the past, as he was the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 and in 2008 he rejected the McCain/Palin ticket, instead embracing Cynthia McKinney and other third-party candidates for president 2008.
Like a kid who is losing a game, Ron Paul took his ball and went home in 2008.
But Missus Palin, sadly, seemed to be unaware of his disloyalty.
I can think of a lot of reasons not to back Ron Paul, and most - if not all - of them are higher up on the list than the fact that Paul was disloyal to the Republican party. There are much greater problems with him.
Ron Paul has made a couple of clever comments that give the (false) impression that Mossad chief Tamir Pardo and former IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi agree with Paul on Iran. Shmuel Rosner explains.
2.
On caucus day, Senator Rand Paul made references both on TV (CNN, Wolf Blitzer) and in other interviews to some notable Israelis. He named both the head of Mossad Tamir Pardo, and the former IDF Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi.
One should wonder: Why would a Senator from Kentucky remember the names of high ranking Israeli officials? There’s a reason: In Paul’s book, Pardo and Ashkenazi are ideological allies in his quest to prove that Iran isn’t as big a threat as some Americans claim it to be. That is why statements such as the one Pardo made a couple of days ago are so tricky. What he said is this: “What is the significance of the term ‘existential? If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop. That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely.” Ashkenazi is also reportedly one of the more moderate voices on Iran, and opposes military confrontation. But he has also said, many times, that “The best course of action is to go with sanctions”, a course that as far as I know is not one Paul would be advocating for.
Paul’s use of Pardo and Ashkenazi was not a fluke or sudden revelation, but rather one of the tactics chosen by the Paul team as a way of proving that Paul’s position regarding Iran is not as extreme and problematic as his opponents would want it to seem. It is quite ironic, though, that the candidate seen as least supportive of Israel is now utilizing those arch-Israelis to make his position more valid.
3.
Evoking such luminaries of security and defense plays well into the story the Paul campaign rightly raises in every opportunity: Paul has support from American military men and women more than any other candidate. But just to make sure we’re all on the same page, I must say this: Paul’s usage of Pardo’s and Ashkenazi’s position is misleading. Both think that Iran is dangerous. Both think it is not just dangerous to Israel but to the region and to the world. Even if they oppose a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, what they oppose is an Israeli attack – and would probably have a different view if asked about the possibility of an American attack.
I'm sure they would. Perhaps it's time for Romney, Santorum and Gingrich to call Paul on it.
Rick Santorum, who until two weeks ago was lagging in the GOP Iowa caucus race, finished in a dead heat with frontrunner Mitt Romney, each getting 25% of the vote. Ron Paul finished third and Newt Gingrich finished fourth, followed by Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.
With 98 percent of precincts reporting the race was too close to call. Both candidates were tied at 25 percent and Ron Paul, a Texas congressman, was set to claim third place with 21 percent of the vote.
Iowa is better known for narrowing the field than picking a future president, and at least one candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry, indicated his presidential bid may be over.
"I've decided to return to Texas, assess the results of tonight's caucus, determine whether there is a path forward for myself in this race," Texas Governor Rick Perry said after a disappointing fifth place finish.
With deep reserves of cash and a strong campaign infrastructure, Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, will emerge from Iowa in a much stronger position than his rivals even though he faces continued mistrust from conservatives.
A favorite of the party's business wing, Romney holds a commanding lead in the next nominating contest in New Hampshire in one week and has the resources to compete in bigger states like Florida at the end of the month.
Santorum vaulted from the back of the pack to emerge as the latest conservative favorite in a race that has been marked by volatility. Campaigning in all Iowa 99 counties, he emphasized his seven home-schooled children and opposition to gay marriage in a bid to win the state's large bloc of Christian conservatives.
"Game on!" the former Pennsylvania senator told supporters.
Santorum staked his campaign on a strong showing in Iowa but with little cash and a bare-bones campaign operation, he could have difficulty competing in other states.
As an afterthought in the race until now, Santorum also had avoided the scrutiny that has derailed other candidates. Pennsylvania voters threw him out of the Senate by an 18-point margin in 2006, and rivals have begun to comb through his legislative record to paint him as a free-spending budget-buster.
Conventional wisdom holds that there are three tickets out of the state, though John McCain was able to overcome a fourth-place finish in 2008 to win the Republican nomination.
It sounds like Perry and Bachmann are out, and likely throwing their support to Santorum or Gingrich if at all. Santorum is rumored to be picking up a lot of money as his campaign has strengthened in Iowa, and these results have to help him a lot.
There's a great piece in NRO by Jamie Fly which tries to figure out Ron Paul's foreign policy. It's only tangentially related to Israel (we are mentioned). But I thought this bit at the end was spot-on.
[Ron Paul] doesn’t grasp what America is, what we have always stood for, and what our global responsibilities are as the world’s sole superpower, and he clearly has no sense of who actually threatens our way of life. A country governed by a Paul administration would lead to a much more dangerous world, embolden our enemies, and likely result in significant American casualties.
As Ronald Reagan eloquently put it in his speech at Pointe du Hoc on the 40th anniversary of D-Day:
We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We’ve learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.
Ron Paul has not learned that lesson. Lucky for the country, he’s unlikely to become president, but it’s heartening to see his rivals have begun to point out, as Newt Gingrich recently did, that “Ron Paul’s views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”
The same should be said of those who support him, regardless of what happens in Iowa. The Republican party does not need these voters, many of whom are independents or Democrats unlikely to support the eventual nominee. The libertarian policies they advocate, whether isolationist or noninterventionist, only serve to undermine the party of Reagan’s tradition of peace through strength. This is a tradition which, thankfully, all of Paul’s competitors have embraced, and it is the tradition that will guide the foreign policy of the next Republican occupant of the White House, whoever that may be.
While it's good to see the mainstream media taking these questions to Ron Paul directly, Tapper and others have not fully pressed him on the matter.
What Tapper should have followed up with, was simply asking Paul if he ever posited the theory that Bush "may" have known about the attacks ahead of time. Notice how Paul adds the caveat "About the conspiracy - of Bush [definitively] knowing about this." That's not how it went down in Ron's offices in the 9/11 immediate aftermath. It was Ron often couching his terms with "might have known," or playing devil's advocate as in the case of "what if." This of course, gave him just enough wiggle room to claim that he never said that's exactly what happened back then, or as he is doing presently.
I maintain, as I have from the beginning of this, that it was Ron Paul's immediate reaction after 9/11 that is the largest of the scandals. The media has yet to press him on this. What I said a week ago, and I say here today, is that practically our whole district staff strongly objected to his threatening to vote against the resolution to go into Afghanistan. Up until the very last minute.
Rep. Ron Paul’s defense of Iran’s nuclear weapons program should surprise no one. The same resentment motivates Ron Paul and the Iranian leadership — a paranoid hostility toward a world that is swiftly changing and has little mercy, and a Millenarian desire to return to a mythical, untroubled past. Get rid of the Federal Reserve, scourge the bankers, return to a gold standard and erect a wall around the United States — and we will return to when? To 1957, when the Russians launched the first space satellite, alerting the United States to the danger that it might lose the Cold War? Then, as always, we prevailed, but by the skin of our teeth. Ron Paul’s program is an American version of the Iranian desire to return to a world of Islamic purity that never existed, any more than did a golden age of American isolationism.
America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America embodies the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Now China has become an agent of creative destruction as well, the consequence of its partial adoption of the American model. China indirectly brought about the so-called Arab Spring, by driving up world grain prices and pricing the Arab poor out of the world market for food. Chinese pigs will eat before Arab peasants; food insecurity (if not actual starvation) undermined the Arab dictatorships.
Iranian resentment is understandable. They recall the Brontosaurus in an old Far Side cartoon, standing at the dais addressing an auditorium full of dinosaurs: “The climate is changing, our food supply is dwindling, and we have a brain the size of a peanut. I’d say we’re in trouble.” Islam is a religion of traditional society, of iron constraints and unquestioned hierarchies. By teaching Iranian girls to read, the late Shah set off a cultural chain-reaction: fertility has fallen from 7 children per female a generation ago to just 1.5 today, a catastrophic decline unparalleled in demographic history. And mosque attendance is down to only 2% by some estimates. Creative destruction has burst in upon Iran and turned its society inside-out. The mullahs still have all the money in Iran’s hydrocarbon monoculture, and almost all the guns, and they will do anything necessary to turn the clock back. Their world is disappearing in front of their eyes. They have nothing to lose.
Of course, the mullahs would have nothing without the global economy; after oil, Iran exports nothing but pistachios and carpets. Without foreign oil companies, the mullahs could not drill, pump, or ship their hydrocarbons. The whole apparatus of Iranian Islam is a theme park, an Shi’ite Disneyland funded by oil revenues, perpetuating a barbaric society that could not feed itself without global demand for the natural resources that, by unlucky accident, happen to be located in Iranian territory.
Mullah Paul voices the same fear and resentment in its milder American form. He has in common with the Iranians a desire to make the world go away, and a fixed idea that an evil conspiracy brought about all the problems. Ron Paul isn’t an Iranian, to be sure; he’s just the closest an American can come to thinking like an Iranian without actually moving there.
There's someone else whom Paul calls to mind: Barack Obama. Like Obama, Paul doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. He doesn't believe in the American capacity to make a difference. And like Obama, Paul would withdraw American troops from around the world (as Obama has done in Iraq and Afghanistan) without regard to whether their job is done or to what might happen once they leave. Obama believes in erecting walls around the United States and then more equally dividing American wealth. He harks back to an era when there was no global economy. Does Paul? (That's not a rhetorical question and you should feel free to write about it in the comments - sitting in Israel I know little about Paul's domestic policies other than the fact that he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard. I don't think he favors a Communist-style redistribution of wealth like Obama does but I could be wrong).
It would be a pity to see Americans make the same mistake that they made in 2008. And it would be a threat to World peace and security.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
